World Aero Data
Aviation discussion. 
Home | Older Messages

Search the Database

Airports
Navaids


Current Page: 3 of 10
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Monkey Boy ()
Date: February 15, 2012 02:41PM

"Future Engineer", I seriously hope you never got your degree. Your entire premise is based on completely incorrect data. The open air burning temperature of Type A/A-1 jet fuel is 260-315°C (500-599 °F)!
Since both planes were destroyed on impact (except landing gear & turbines) there was no way for the fuel to burn any hotter than that so your explanation is not only ridiculous but lacks any scientific logic.
I am glad to see at least some people on here have done their research. You can always tell the know nothings by their naive comments
BTW, Jane & Chelsea, of course the day was terrible and trajic that is precisely why the real culprits need to be brought to justice.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: YourAllWrong ()
Date: February 20, 2012 03:25AM

It was alkayda opratifes that were inside the towers at the same tim the plains imepcted the TT(twin towers)!!

Options: ReplyQuote
this subject
Posted by: Someone ()
Date: February 29, 2012 10:20PM

Actually, we will never, ever, know for sure what truly happend that horrible day. So, my point is, why are we actually having this discussion. It´s not that it´s going to change anything of what happened. Fact is, it happened and we have to live with it. So stop talking about this.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: davidstarlingm ()
Date: March 09, 2012 06:11PM

Well, remember -- jet fuel wasn't the only thing on those planes. They would've also carried tanks full of the mind-control agents airliners use to make chemtrails. Who knows what temperature that stuff burns at!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Randy H. ()
Date: March 21, 2012 02:40AM

Sorry to bring the fourm back to life, but if you check out Mats' YOUTUBE link, check out the 39th second. If you look near the bottem middle of the actual video (Not the entire frame), There is what looks to be MOLTEN STEEL dripping out of the towers. That is RIGHT where the plane RIPPED through the Towers, and right where the fuelsalage is. If what you all are saying is right about steel, that would have to be a different type of fuel. Or, as davidstarlingm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, remember -- jet fuel wasn't the only thing
> on those planes. They would've also carried tanks
> full of the mind-control agents airliners use to
> make chemtrails. Who knows what temperature that
> stuff burns at!
Maybe that was present at the time? I have read though that steel becomes weak at 600 degrees fahrenheit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: matthew ()
Date: April 04, 2012 05:49PM

I would like to know how investigating a crime is disrespectful of the victims?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Ronnyjoejimbob ()
Date: May 06, 2012 04:06AM

Of course and Building 7 just decided to commit suicide on it's own and who could blame it after being forced to have all the documents from Enron inside it. I think I will trust to people who do have degrees and also.....


Sure why not charge these men at Guantanamo? there is a ton of secrecy that is being hid from the public. Like the Israeli Mossad Agents who were arrested filming the disaster in New Jersey with two vans of explosives and a painting on the side of one van showing a plane flying into the WTC towers high fiving each other while the buildings burned. Or maybe WTC 7 demolished by a controlled demolition. Or George Bushes brother Marvin Bush being a director for the company that ran security that protected the WTC's and the three United Airline terminals where the planes took off from. Or how about all the missing gold from the banks vaults that just evaporated. Gold evaporates at 2600 deg C. Airline fuel burns at most 1000 deg C. So? Why not charge a bunch of villians who did not have access to the Cordite used to cut through the frames of both buildings which would have taken a good week to plant properly? There is so much wrong with this world and it comes from Israel and New York city. [www.hindustantimes.com]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: John ()
Date: May 21, 2012 05:56PM

I think that you are an amature and should leave it to the professionals to tell us what actually happened to the steel pillars in the World Trade Center NOT YOU "STUDENT"!!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: JustaBigDick ()
Date: June 04, 2012 02:59AM

I think Jane and Chelsea should spend a couple years in Afghanistan, then come back and tell us how they feel.
Does anybody remember John Kerry's real reason he ran for president? He said he overheard W talking about using the 911 attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq and take out Saddam.
But that's not even the issue. This is the issue; in order for the entire building to fall perfectly straight down, all at once, it ABSOLUTELY, WITHOUT A DOUBT, had to lose its structural integrity at every supporting point in the structure, on EVERY FLOOR, all at the same time. Otherwise, it NEVER EVER would or could happen like that. Need proof? Try this; get a piece of paper. Put two cuts in it, as if you were to cut it into thirds. But don't go all the way thru. Now grab the two side pieces, one in each hand, and try to pull them off the center piece. You will NEVER pull both pieces off, only one or the other. Now apply. Unless every weld on every piece of steel was weakened exactly the same, the building cannot fall straight. It would fall erratically, which it did not. Physics IS proof. It's not a theory; it's fact.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Bob Wojcieszak ()
Date: June 13, 2012 06:41PM

I think you're forgetting one very important aspect in this whole discussion. What about the force of impact? The weight of of a fully fueled 757-200 is almost 56 tons. The average weight of a wrecking ball is 2,400 pounds and it certainly doesn't swing several hundred miles per hour. Coupled with the fact that it was flying more than 300 mph, plus the jet fuel didn't just ignite, it exploded, therefore making the burn that much more intense, thus making the aircraft a flying bomb.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: kk ()
Date: June 21, 2012 07:47PM

If you choose to ignore "common sense" when the facts are virtually spoon-fed to you, "cry" conspiracy theory people are nuts, and just make up answers to very obvious situations brought on by SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY, then you have just proven the Bible is all true accounts of history and not just a "good story"( which it is, a STORY). I am sure all the actual "rocket scientists" are all wrong and the people who witnessed it with their own eyes are just mistaken and didn't see explosions at the bottom of the towers BEFORE they free-fell. Yea, and all the airport security staff, all in different airports, all decided NOT to do their jobs, all at the same time, all on the same day, and all at very different locations...yea, that's just coincidence. It's also strange how these so called "conversations with flight attendants" on the hijacked planes are SUPER calm like any other day on a nice and shiny flight to the land of OZ...yea, try again my friends. Anyway...I was just researching the highest temperature in which a planes' "black box" can withstand...which is less than "molten" steel, by the way, so explain how these "black boxes" were recovered when steel was melted like butter. Oh, and by the way? Pilots have a code in which tells ATC that they are being hijacked, in which, there are MULTIPLE military installations that are conveniently located throughout the nation armed and ready to intercept any plane, any UFO, ANY flying entity within 10 minutes flat...period. BUT THEY DIDN'T...yea, that was just a "communication error", yea. And the 911 Commission? Are you kidding me? I do not see how this investigation was just passed over and closed with such a plethora of massively compelling iron-clad EVIDENCE...open your eyes people, the families, the firemen, and hero's of 911 DESERVE THE TRUTH!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: kk ()
Date: June 21, 2012 08:55PM

OH and PS...Video of the buildings CLEARLY show them falling within themselves and NOT out, or over, or to the side, or in half OR anything. They imploded within themselves, which is impossible without a helluva lot of "weakening actions" implemented below the top of the structure...GIANT DUH!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Steve ()
Date: July 03, 2012 02:30PM

> 3. In 1945 the U.S. government decided to let the
> Japanese get all the way to Pearl Harbor and bomb
> the place. They let it take place in order to
> Galvanize the country for war. Same thing happened
> here but it was not let happen, it was fabricated.
> Now we are in Iraq!! Yay!! =( But would there be
> any chance of us there without 9/11? Probly not in
> such force and short time.
>

I agree with most of what you say, but lest ye forget, it was 1941 NOT 1945. WWII ended in 1945! Of course, I'm just an old baby boomer at age 63. But, I am aeronautical engineer and I worked for NASA on the space shuttle project at Michoud in New Orleans for 10 years. I can tell you without any doubt that JetA (or JP5 for that matter) cannot be responsible for 'melting' the heavy steel in the towers. For one thing, there wasn't enough TIME, even IF the temperature was hot enough - which it wasn't.

And false flags? Don't forget the German Reichstag burning by Hitler when he said the Jews did it, the USS Liberty in 1967, the Gulf of Tonkin, the London bombings on 7/7, and even the JFK assassination. Oswald DIDN'T do it!

Personally, I believe the Israeli Mossad carried it out with our government 'allowing' it. The thermite was carried in in broad daylight and made to look like batteries for the computer system on the 81st floor! Ever seen a plane after it collides with a big bird? You'd be amazed how much damage that 5 lb bird can do! And the 911 commission claiming that the plane that hit the Pentagon was going 520knots? No way! The plane wasn't designed to be able to go that fast at that low of an altitude with dense air! It would have been ripped apart! The safe speeds of those planes are actually in a relatively narrow range. And that isn't even considering the inexperienced ninny who was supposed to be flying the plane! It is all propaganda to make up give up our freedoms and for us to enter the 'war on terror' with Israel.

Options: ReplyQuote
Are you familiar with Architects & Engineers for 911 truth and their discovery of nano-thermitic particles in the dust of the World trade center site would not this be a factor in how the building steel melted.
Posted by: Mike Watland ()
Date: July 04, 2012 08:43PM

Are you familiar with Architects & Engineers for 911 truth and their discovery of nano-thermitic particles in the dust of the World trade center site your assessment leaves out this factor in how the building steel melted.

Posted by: Mike Watland

Date: 07/04/2012 03:41PM

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: mrb6990 ()
Date: July 12, 2012 01:32PM

I am not a sheep. I do not believe most of what the government says. I don't even like the government. I am not naive. Had to get those out of the way. Some people seem to be using a couple of specific things as evidence supporting a theory. One being that burning jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt structural steel. That is correct. The problem with that argument is that it doesn't matter. No, burning jet fuel didn't melt any steel. It just had to weaken it. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C - well within the realm of realism for the temperature of the fire that day. Each floor was designed to hold 1,300 tons. As the steel weakened, the weight that was put on the most damaged floors became greater and greater until they were unable to support it. As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 ton design capacity) could not support the 45,000 tons (or more) of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on the angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse. Regarding the 'free fall' argument... The buildings did fall within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been an actual free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 300 km/h. As for falling 'straight down,' BigDick up there was very enthusiastic with his use of CAPS to emphasize what he thinks is and isn't possible. Watch the South Tower collapse again. The whole top third of the building leaned, at quite an angle. Nothing straight about it. And the paper analogy? Hardly applicable. It wasn't lateral force, it was vertical. You're talking about tens of thousands of *tons* of weight bearing down on a single floor, 70-80 times. The whole floor will give, not just half of it. As far as people who cite other instances of fires in other buildings that didn't collapse, those other buildings weren't 208ft across or a quarter of a mile tall, nor did they weigh 500 tons. This was unprecedented. There is nothing that happened before or since that you can compare it to. Someone mentioned the plane that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. That fire was extinguished within 30 minutes and there wasn't anywhere near as much weight on top of the affected area as there was in WTC 1 & 2. Regarding 'nano-thermitic particles,', the same materials that people try to make an argument for thermite with.... and even the people who came up with that theory admit this... are also used in welding. Coincidentally, there was a lot of welding done when those towers were originally constructed. Aside from the fact that in order for thermite to have been used to cut through enough steel beams (because thermite doesn't explode, it burns), the most conservative estimate I've found about how much thermite would have been necessary to have been responsible for the towers collapsing is a little over 100 dump truck loads of it, thus rendering that theory impossible. Nobody was getting 100 trucks full of anything into a building without being noticed. Regarding the building not falling erratically, and/or falling in on itself, it certainly did not fall 'in on itself,' the debris was spread over several city *blocks*, and there was nothing 'controlled' about the collapses. Watch them again. All kinds of things were falling *away* from the buildings. It was completely erratic.
For the genius who thinks jet fuel burns at 599º, it is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to a maximum of 1,000°C.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: RANDY ()
Date: July 30, 2012 11:46PM

I WAS THERE ON 911 AND AM GETTING SICK OF THE FAR LEFT SAYING IT WAS OUR GOVT. THAT TOOK WORLD TRADE OUT I LOST TO MANY RELITIVES THAT DAY

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: jaffar ()
Date: August 08, 2012 11:47AM

@ Jane and Chelsea- you two are part of the problem. You throw around the word conspiracy and the discussion is over. Thats red herring, a fallacy of relevance that diverts attention from what is ACTUALLY being said.

Back to the science without blaming anyone.... and just focusing on the scientific facts, the easiest way to look at this situation is through the lens of WTC7.

I believe that the smoking gun to 9/11 is the "symmetry" of the collapse of WTC7. In order for that building to experience a global, symmetrical, free fall collapse is if (and only if) ALL OF ITS SUPPORT COLLUMNS WERE SEVERED AT THE SAME TIME. That is the important part... the symmetrical collapse means all support columns were severed at the same time. Part of the building being on fire for 8 hours (or however long) "could" have caused the collapse... yes I said it... could have, why not..doesnt matter.... but, the collapse would NOT have been symmetrical and the building would have toppled to one side or another (the weakened side). It most certainly would not have symmetrically collapsed at free fall acceleration into its own footprint. NOPE. Objects in free fall cannot do work, if it was collapsing and crushing the rest of the fifty or so beams, it would be doing work and therefore could not be in freefall... and this building did experience a free fall acceleration. Couple this with what silverstein says (not just the term "pull it" but the entire conversation, his body language; he really meant what he said in that "we decided to ___ __ and watch the building come down." Fill in the blank with anything and the message still gets across. He chose to bring it down, plain and simple.)
Bottom line, if you can rig one building ahead of time with explosives... you can rig three.

Side note: why isnt silverstein taking anybody to court over faulty construction? I mean, I'd be pissed if a building I owned experienced a collapse like that because "one" column failed. I mean, that building had over 50 columns. I'd sue the sh1t out of the construction company. I dont think he did though.... I could be wrong.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Joel Barry ()
Date: August 17, 2012 11:53PM

I'm no expert on this stuff but I thought you made a reasoned statement. From all my reading on the topic I believe you are 100% correct in your appraisal. Good work.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Thomas ()
Date: August 24, 2012 07:54PM

Posted by: RANDY ()

Date: July 30, 2012 06:46PM


I WAS THERE ON 911 AND AM GETTING SICK OF THE FAR LEFT SAYING IT WAS OUR GOVT. THAT TOOK WORLD TRADE OUT I LOST TO MANY RELITIVES THAT DAY

I'm sorry for the pain you suffer and for the loss of your loved ones.

Honestly though, your pain doesnt preclude the need of myself and MANY MANY others to have the TRUTH about what really transpired on 9-11 brought forth to public light so that those TRULY responsible for your losses and the TERROR they induced upon our population, can be found out and prosecuted.

It is truly shocking to me that so many, supposedly intelligent, people still believe the official accounts of that day, even though the officials have changed those accountings multiple times in order to TRY to fit the FACTS.

As Mike Watland posted earlier, I strongly suggest ANYONE not understanding the facts of the Physics behind the demolition of ALL 3 WTC buildings visit AE911Truth. There you will find over 1,600+ Architechs and Engineers with 55,000+ years of combined experience who can walk you through the use of the Scientific Method we all learned in 8th grade, to show how the official story is nothing more than Lies and Propoganda.

They do this with FACTS, not theory. I honestly believe anyone with an open mind and the ability to reason will have no choice but to admit we were all duped on 9-11 and that the price of 3,000 innocent americans is a small price to pay for those responible when you're trying to maintain or expand an empire.

Lastly, all you naysayers seem to be functioning under the assumption that our government actually gives a shit about us, when time and time again, they have shown we are only as important to them as how we can be used to further their ends. I still see this alot in my own town, people dont feel or see the effects this event has had on our civil liberties, social well being, future outlook on life, etc etc etc etc, all because "it doesnt effect me", "my life is fine, dont rock the boat and mess it up for me", or "we cant do anything about it."

Final thoughts for all you 'Official Story' Supporters . .

"Those who would trade Freedom for Security, deserve neither."
Benjamin Franklin

"There is no shorcut to Truth, no way to gain knowledge of the universe except through the gateway of the Scientific Method."
-Karl Pearson

"Condemnation without Investigation is the height of Ignorance"
-Albert Einstein

I personally love the Scientific Method, it doesnt care about yours or my opinions, yours or my beliefs, or yours or my desires. It ONLY concerns itself with Fact and Truth. And if you cannot understand that simple premise, then we are in far worse trouble than I had previously feared.

Again, PLEASE, visit the AE911Truth site, and get yourselves a healthy dose of Truth backed Facts of the reality we are living in. We need the rest of you to WAKE UP!! for as long as we are divided, the powers that be have us right where they want us.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: David ()
Date: September 08, 2012 05:30PM

Regardless of what anyone believes the government doesn't and will never tell us the whole truth. Why do you think there are like 20 security clearances above the presidents? They do that to protect America and its people, the fact is the world is a cruel place and most americans are obvious to that. People feel that our government would never do anything cruel or "unholy". You all bring up good points and arguements. The fact is the government will lie to us to avoid mass hysteria and public outrage from the america people and the rest of the world. They would have to make it look like someone else is to blame, to get everyone behind it to show the public that we were attacked, this is a threat to us. What would everyone do? Emotions run wild, what your told becomes fact and we all rally behind it.

All that said I dont believe that our government(not that they couldn't) was behind the twin towers attacks. As someone said before the "Motlen Steel" could have just been aluminium from the plane melting since it melts at a much lower temperature than steel. Also cosidering that thermite is made from aluminium + iron-oxide + right amount of heat, could explain why the molten metal was seen and why the towers fell. The real question is did anyone ever examine this metal to determine its composition?

If the government had any involvement in the falling of the towers, I believe that it might have been controlled explosions to bring the towers down to have the towers fall with the least collateral damage; after the planes struct them. Probably to save more lives, cause less damage to the buildings around them. I could only imagine a domino like effect on the surrouning buildings, although I'm not sure if it would cause a chain reaction like that. Of course they'd never admit to killing still possibly alive people left in the towers, or that they used explosives on the tower because someone could say that they were behind the attacks.

I Strongly believe the only real conspiracy about the 9/11 attacks is the fact that flight 93 was shot down, and did not crash because of the citzens on board. The heroic people onboard did put up a fight but never reached the cockpit and the government made the tough decision to shoot the plane down to save the more lives. As I said before they would never tell us this. I believe they made the people of flight 93 heros(as I believe they are) exaggerated there fight onboard and gave the american people a sence of pride, fuel for revenge, and the fact that american citzens will die for what is right.

This may be a bad example but if my wife were to ask me how she looks i'm not gonna say "honey you look like a fat cow in that outfit", haha of course I'm going to say "you look beautiful". The government will tell us what we want to hear, and sometimes the bigger the lie the more likely people are to believe it. We are all just puppets being pulled by strings, whether its by the government, the universe, or whoever your God(s) is/are.

And to answer some of the dumb questions you guys are asking like, Iraq and why we have bases in arab countries. The answer is oil and trade we have bases in those major oil producing countries to protect our interests, and keep costs low. I'm no expert but on average the food you buy comes from 2000 miles away in the U.S. can you imagine if fuel was not being refined or moved do to a war in the middle east? Our economy would stall/collaspe and since we have a global economy and everyone is tied together eventually the rest of the worlds economy's would collapse. Which is why we have the huge U.S. 5th fleet in the gulf and all of our bases. The weapons of mass destruction and terriorism whether they exist or not is the lie/facts that keep us believing in the story because most people are narrow sited/minded and can't see the larger picture of how everything works together.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Manny ()
Date: September 11, 2012 01:01PM

In the (very) general, okay, but once you get into the factual weeds, 70+ story buildings impacted by jet aircraft with almost maximum fuel loads for transcontinental flights, it has happened once.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: mike ()
Date: September 11, 2012 10:33PM

nice rebuttal

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Dan ()
Date: September 16, 2012 01:47AM

For you to even think that the Govt is by the people or even for the people makes you a blind sheep....They have you where they want you.....There are so many documentaries and books written about who our GOD's and Master's really are its pathetic, yet you still want to live in the dark ages of a perfect Utopia with the perfect Govt....Open you're eyes, unless you just another paid off puppet that they have to run around and discredit the proof....

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Allen ()
Date: September 21, 2012 06:14PM

But the jet engines are made of titanium, and titanium burns at 3030 degrees Fahrenheit, the planes at the pentagon basically were not found and were said to be evaporated. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F). - Sited at Jeffersonscience.com jet fuel is still not hot enough to melt the entire building only the top of it. whats your point?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Jim ()
Date: September 22, 2012 03:17AM

Another person asked about melting steel, as burning jet fuel will not melt steel. That is true\, it will cause stteel to warp or bend out of shape after an hour of fire. What is also true is, aircraft aluminum is a mixture of aluminum and MAGNESIUM and it will burn at temps approaching 4,000 degrees, which is more than hot enough to melt steel beams.

The two aircraft were almost fully loaded with tons of fuel, which exploded on impact and the resulting fires were not accessable to firemen and auto sprinkers on those floors were wiped out by the crashes and they wouldn’t have helped with a fuel and magnesium fire anyway. No firemen ever got onto the floors where the aircraft entered.

There were tons of “smushed”, into a compacted mass of burning aircraft, wedged right up into the buildings central cores. The heat would have been near 4,000 degrees at those locations. That is where the building floors were attached, and the heat went right up the center of the buildings, like giant chimneys.

There are also some other aircraft parts, such as the large landing gear wheels, which are solid magnesium, and once magnesium, or magnesium aluminum alloys are afire, they cannot be put out, except by burying them in sand or smothering with foam. Water on magnesium fires will cause it to explode.

Military aircraft generally have more magnesium than commercial airliners, but there was tons of magnesium in those 767s which struck the two towers. Later mdels ahve less magnesium. A fact which has been ignored in all of the official reports about the 9-11 disaster. It should not have been ignored.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: Gilligab ()
Date: September 27, 2012 06:49AM

Just thought id let you know jeb bush was in control of the security company watching over wtc...and for 6 months prior to 9/11 the eleveators were being renovated...conveniently enough with easiest access to the beams...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: NO ONE SPECIAL ()
Date: October 02, 2012 11:28PM

WHAT ABOUT BUILDING 7 OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER???????? WHY DID THAT COLLASPES FUTURE ENGINEERS

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: job ()
Date: October 03, 2012 12:02AM

Well no building has ever been struck by a commercial aircraft that big, the fires inside previous steel structures were not as large and were not fueled by Jet fuel. They also did not have a plane weaken the structure before the fire even started. Also the WTC was very tall, there was nothing could be done to control the fire and not much had to happen to bring it down if you consider this, the potential energy is so great that as soon as one important beam breaks it's all over because then the rest of the beams take the weight it was supporting and then they break/bend from the extra weight and soon gravity takes over, using the top 25 floors of the building as a pile driver crushing everything beneath it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: dwayne ()
Date: October 03, 2012 11:32PM

Amen! Just kidding.

I know this is an old thread and I probably won't ever get back to this site however...

I'd have to agree with some of you and raise this question.

If the impact is up on the 80th floor wouldn't there still be enough integrity in the remaining floors to cause the damage to sluff off eventually? Why does the whole tower colapse into small pieces all the way to ground zero?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Reply to people who say jet fuel can't melt steel
Posted by: dwayne ()
Date: October 04, 2012 12:15AM

Perhaps I'll challange this one.

Wouldn't the remaining 80 floors beneath the impact cause the damage to sluff off onto the streets below. I find it difficult to believe that a fire 800 feet above is goinig to have that much effect below.

The building pancaked too perfectly with no large pieces all the way to ground zero...I'm more of a skeptic...

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 3 of 10


Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
This forum powered by Phorum.




©2020 WorldAeroData.com.